INTRODUCTION

At the 70th Session of the meeting of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the CERD ) in Geneva, Switzerland, and in consideration of Canada's seventeenth and eighteenth periodic reports in compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), in its concluding observations, the CERD stated that Canada should "reflect further, in line with article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on the implications of the use of the term "visible minorities" (CERD/C/CAN/CO/18).

The observations made by the CERD on Canada's use of the term visible minority drew significant attention in Canada, in particular, with the lead of media outlets. It brought to the fore, yet again, the use and appropriateness of the terminology; and whether it perpetuates the very racism that it is intended to counter.

Given the role of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) as a leading voice on the agenda of race, racism and anti-racism work in Canadian society, we felt that it was important to comment on the observations of the CERD and to share our position on this issue of the use of the terminology visible minority.

CRRF's Background

The CRRF is a national organization that is committed to building a national framework for the fight against racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canadian society.

The organization was established as one part of the 1988 Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement between the Government of Canada and Japanese Canadians, to work at the forefront of efforts to combat racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canada. The CRRF is a registered charitable organization and operates on income derived from the investments of the endowment fund and donations.

The CRRF carries out its mandate through six key areas of activities:

contract research program which funds and publishes research reports on contemporary issues of racism in Canada;

initiatives against racism program which funds community initiatives to raise awareness and combat racism;

awards of excellence program which acknowledges outstanding initiatives in anti-racism work throughout Canada. This program is complemented by a symposium to share information and facilitate networking among organizations and agencies involved in anti-racism work;

publications and clearinghouse on racism and anti-racism(which includes newsletters, "Facts About Series"; annotated bibliographies in the Critical Reading series and the research journal "Directions", among others)

education and training - workshops, seminars and conferences convened across the country to enhance education in both public and private institutions, and promote awareness of anti-racism issues.

policy development & special projects - supports, promotes and develops effective policies for the elimination of racial discrimination

Since its inception the CRRF has undertaken various roles and leadership in the fight to eliminate racism both in Canada and within the international context in areas such as education, policing, promoting dialogue among communities, contributing to evolving knowledge and understanding on the impact of racism.

In support of the work of the United Nations, the CRRF has undertaken various activities and initiatives to advance work in these areas. These include, participation in the Durban Conference and contributing a Canadian NGO Forum Position Paper to the process, convening a post-Durban symposium with Canadian NGOs and governments to discuss the domestic application of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action towards the development of a national action plan against racism, and acting as interlocutor for civil society for the Canadian visit of the UN Special Rapporteur against Racism. In this role, the CRRF coordinated the participation of civil society in a number of roundtable discussions and consultations that were held across the country with the Special Rapporteur. These are just some of the activities in which the CRRF has engaged to advance the anti-racism agenda both domestically and internationally.

As a national organization that aims to build a national framework for the fight against racism in Canadian society, the CRRF has a catalytic role in informing public and private policies and practices in combating racism.

VISIBLE MINORITIES : THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ITS USE IN CANADIAN SOCIETY TODAY

Our commentary is on the appropriateness of the use of the terminology visible minorities in the Canadian context today and in light of the observations of the CERD.

As stated by the Canadian representative, and noted by the CERD, the term is used specifically within the scope of Canada's Employment Act. However, the Committee is also correct in reminding the state party that the term is also "widely used in other official documents of the State Party, including the census." (CERD/C/CAN/CO/18: para 13).

It should be noted that the term "visible minority" is a political construct and that was intended to be used within the specific context of Employment Equity measures. As such, it is defined as non-White and non-Aboriginal (Abella 1984). Furthermore, the term was considered to serve the purpose of reasonably capturing an understanding of the exclusion faced by those who are, "visibly non-white" in employment opportunities available to whites." (ibid. 46)

Apart from its usage in the context of employment equity, the term has taken on its own distinctiveness .It is widely used and applied in the public and private sectors of Canadian society to name and categorize those who are and have been the target of racial discrimination and racism, (with the exception of Aboriginal peoples), and who are not members of the dominant group, holding power in Canadian society - that being White. Additionally, the term implies "White" or Caucasian as the "norm" and having power in the Canadian context, and "visible minorities" as the "other".

The use of the term has generated much controversy, and stirred opposing viewpoints on the issue. On the positive side, first, the use of the term delineates the relationship of power between the dominant group and the "other" that is manifested in the experience of racism and racial discrimination.

Second, it facilitates using an all-encompassing language to collectively identify and name those targeted by racism and racial discrimination and the ensuing corrective measures to address or eliminate the discrimination, marginalization or exclusion. This has its advantage in that it allows for a "one-size-fits-all" approach and strategy to eliminate racism.

Third, under this broad category of "visible minorities", data is available on the experiences of those who are "non-White" and non-Aboriginal, but only as a composite group. Given the lack of available and consistently collected race-based data which would provide a more incisive assessment of the experiences of individual racial groups, the data collected for "visible minorities" therefore provide the next best option.

On the negative side, the term has also evoked very strong responses both from those targeted by racism and those who are a part of the dominant group.

First, at the core of the various objections to the terminology is the extent to which the term connotes and underscores a sense of inferiority and constructs the situation of "visible minorities" to be permanently on the margins or the outside. - "the other". In essence, it carries with it an inferred devalued status with a sense of permanency. Additionally, it maintains the status quo of "White" being normal and considered as non-racialized. Whereas, "visible minority" is constructed as different, is not considered as the norm and it is racialized.

Second, the very act of categorizing the diverse racial groups who are in the minority, into a single group of "visible minorities" carries with it various assumptions about similarity of experiences (if not a perception of homogeneity in experiences). It oversimplifies the complexity and multidimensional nature and experiences of oppression, as well as the relative degrees of oppression that any particular racialized individual or group experiences as compared to others. This oversimplification of oppression is further indicated in the lack of recognition of the experience when multiple social identities of an individual are intersected with race - be it gender, class, age, etc. Therefore, while the term "visible minorities" constitute numerous diverse and complex racial groups and/or individuals, this generic terminology and categorization fails to give significance to the unique and distinct experiences of respective racial groups and which is further layered when other social identities are intersected. Consequently, this has real implications to appropriately define and understand the situation of respective, racial groups and thereby, to determine the type of ameliorative measures that will make critical impact in addressing the racism and or racial discrimination; and to then improve the conditions for these groups individually and collectively.

Third, the term strikes at the heart of identity and inclusiveness. In its intent to be inclusive of all non-White individuals and groups, except Aboriginal peoples, the terminology undermines the sense of identity associated with country of origin, race and potentially culture. The amorphous nature of the terminology is intended to incorporate in a generalist approach an understanding and appreciation of the common experiences of marginalization and exclusion faced by non-whites, with the exception of Aboriginal peoples. However, it serves to amplify the common identity of "visible minority", while minimizing social identities connected to race, country of origin, etc.

In the context of Canadian identity, the use of the term "visible minorities" renegotiates, and even further, undercuts the identity of "Canadianess" for those identified as "visible minorities". It does so through the nuanced and, at the same time, vivid interpretation of visible minorities of being different and not the average (White) Canadian. While visible minorities may appear to be inclusive of all racialized persons on the one hand, what it does most effectively, is to silence the very essence of self-identity, that is very much linked to an individual's or group's country of origin, race, ethnicity, among other identities that shapes racialized person's or group's experiences in the Canadian context.

It is our view that terminology is an important element in any strategy to address or eliminate racism and racial discrimination. Over time, terminologies and concepts in the discourse on race, racism and anti-racism have changed and evolved depending on the socio-political and geo-political context in which racism occurs. The climate in which governments and civil society must work to combat racism and racial discrimination is fraught with tremendous denial, resistance, tension and challenges, evolving and ever-changing language, terminology, concepts and analyses. Central to this work and any approaches to eliminate racial discrimination, are the individuals and groups who are the targets of racism and racial discrimination, including the language and concepts that are used to identify and/or categorize them and name their experiences. It is with this understanding, that the CRRF developed its Glossary, as a primary and evolving reference and educational tool.

The CRRF promotes the view that any strategy to address and eliminate racism and racial discrimination must acknowledge and name race. We also endorse the established understanding that race is a social construct and that, individuals and groups are racialized in society and designated as different. On that basis they are subjected to differential and unequal treatment. (CRRF Glossary, 2005) As such, our language has evolved to use and promote the use of the term racialized individual or groups instead of "visible minority". It is our position that the use of the term "racialized groups" brings with it an immediate acknowledgement of the distinct experiences of individual groups based on their respective race, country of origin, ethnicity, and not a generalized interpretation, by default. Further, the use of "racialized" supports the increasing recognition of the need for the collection of data disaggregated by race to better understand the manifestation of racism and racial discrimination and to then develop effective and adequate corrective strategies and measures

CONCLUSION

Does the use of the term and categorization of "visible minority" contravene Article 1, paragraph 1 of ICERD? We cannot make that determination conclusively. However, the CRRF's position is that the use of the term is inappropriate because it diminishes the social identities of racial groups who are in the minority, and permanently constructs them as "the other".

Further, the CRRF strongly recommends that Canada moves to discontinue its use for the negative reasons aforementioned and to use the term "racialized" individual(s)/groups or even racial minorities. These terms underline the social construct of race, that race is a part of everyone's life and part of all societies. Further these terminologies more accurately reflect the power (economic, social, political and cultural) relationship that is implicit in racism and racial discrimination, and that ranks groups based on their race.